As an admitted amatuer to these discussions, I was hoping to learn more about our foreign policy by opening up this thread.

From the things I've read/seen/discussed, I find myself to be almost a libertarian on this issue. I feel we've over-extended ourselves an obscene amount with far too many bases in far too many locations. It's entangled us too often in affairs of other nations and put an unnecessary financial burden on a country that can't afford it.

12-10-2012, 07:35 AM

The Schmooze

I share your same ideology.

I believe in a military capable of protecting the United States, however what we have is a huge complex that is draining our resources and making us less safe. I'm not anti-war, just anti-illegitimate and illegal war.

The United States was never supposed to be an empire, with over 900 bases in 130 countries that we currently have today. We stick our nose in everywhere, then wonder why we're hated around the world.

12-10-2012, 10:38 AM

Angry Norwegian

Chomsky is fun.

12-11-2012, 02:43 PM

The Schmooze

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angry Norwegian

Chomsky is fun.

:confused:

12-11-2012, 03:07 PM

behindmydesk

While we have a huge military we simply can't cut it all at once. I wouldn't mind a small but steady decrease. I do think we need to have by far the biggest military but we still within 10-15 years could lower it to half what is and still I think be 3 times bigger then the next. I say you can't cut all at once because it'd be pretty damaging to the economy.

12-11-2012, 03:21 PM

The Schmooze

Quote:

Originally Posted by behindmydesk

While we have a huge military we simply can't cut it all at once. I wouldn't mind a small but steady decrease. I do think we need to have by far the biggest military but we still within 10-15 years could lower it to half what is and still I think be 3 times bigger then the next. I say you can't cut all at once because it'd be pretty damaging to the economy.

I agree, if any changes were to occur it would have to be slow and gradual. The machine is so large and complex that you'd have ot try and minmalize the hurt to American workers and the eocnomy as much as possible.

However, our foreign policy hasn't changed since the 50s, no matter which party is in power...so this is wishful thinking. I don't see it as ever changing.

12-11-2012, 07:04 PM

Patsfan56

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Schmooze

I agree, if any changes were to occur it would have to be slow and gradual. The machine is so large and complex that you'd have ot try and minmalize the hurt to American workers and the eocnomy as much as possible.

However, our foreign policy hasn't changed since the 50s, no matter which party is in power...so this is wishful thinking. I don't see it as ever changing.

Oh, I think it can.

We have a tremendous opportunity here given the ramping down of operations in Afghanistan (although Karzai just signed an extension on US Armed forces in Afghansitan through 2030).

We have an opportunity to reflect opn what the mission statement for our military needs to be. I do not believe we should be postured to confront two major fronts at one time. Obviously, the difference will need to be compensated through changes in foreign policy, and mutual defense agreements and the like with our friends and allies. However, if we can refine the mission statement, everything else will follow.

We would need to assess our needs for armored, mechanized, and light forces based upon the greatest threats we envision overthe next 15 years. Where we think we might fight will tel us how much of each type of force we will need. From there, we can trim it down. The trick will be not repeating the same mistake made after each conflict- ramping down too far, which results in poor unit readiness, low morale, and insufficient resourcing of units and their equipment. My personal thought is that ten divisions is about where we need to be, but the composition of those divisions is what needs to be addressed.

I would need someone with more relevant expereince in the Navy to articluate a strategy for approaching this issue from a seapower standpoint.

This can most definitely be done, if intelligently. If not, and we go the way we've gone before, we tend to have to overspend to rapidly ramp up forces when we need them, and elect people like W after eight years of Clinton's military mismanagement. He says all the things folks want to hear, but his presidency was even worse for the military than was Clintons, and that is saying something.

12-12-2012, 10:35 AM

The Schmooze

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patsfan56

Oh, I think it can.

We have a tremendous opportunity here given the ramping down of operations in Afghanistan (although Karzai just signed an extension on US Armed forces in Afghansitan through 2030).

We have an opportunity to reflect opn what the mission statement for our military needs to be. I do not believe we should be postured to confront two major fronts at one time. Obviously, the difference will need to be compensated through changes in foreign policy, and mutual defense agreements and the like with our friends and allies. However, if we can refine the mission statement, everything else will follow.

We would need to assess our needs for armored, mechanized, and light forces based upon the greatest threats we envision overthe next 15 years. Where we think we might fight will tel us how much of each type of force we will need. From there, we can trim it down. The trick will be not repeating the same mistake made after each conflict- ramping down too far, which results in poor unit readiness, low morale, and insufficient resourcing of units and their equipment. My personal thought is that ten divisions is about where we need to be, but the composition of those divisions is what needs to be addressed.

I would need someone with more relevant expereince in the Navy to articluate a strategy for approaching this issue from a seapower standpoint.

This can most definitely be done, if intelligently. If not, and we go the way we've gone before, we tend to have to overspend to rapidly ramp up forces when we need them, and elect people like W after eight years of Clinton's military mismanagement. He says all the things folks want to hear, but his presidency was even worse for the military than was Clintons, and that is saying something.

I agree with your argument completely.

To me, a big problem is that the people whose job it is to do the decision-making(which includes assessing our own mission statement) often have deep ties to the defense industry. We had a defense contractor for VP for Christs' sake. The revolving door helps ensure that there's little chance of us making a shift to our foreign policy. I won't even get into lobbying power and using fear to increase "defense" spending exponentially(and endlessly) b/c out there there is always somebody out to get us.

I sincerely hope it changes. defense contractors and other war-related industries made insane profits over the years. We can't drain our economy and jeopardize our security any longer.

12-12-2012, 11:57 PM

GasMan

It's a terrible foreign policy.

12-13-2012, 08:46 AM

C-ross12

IIRC we could literally cut the military in half and still easily have the most powerful military force. I generally dislike how we handle foreign policy. I always see the question on talk shows and such "Why do other countries not like us?" Well, thats easy to see. Spreading Democracy is fine, but it should be done by example.

12-13-2012, 09:39 AM

The Schmooze

Quote:

Originally Posted by C-ross12

IIRC we could literally cut the military in half and still easily have the most powerful military force. I generally dislike how we handle foreign policy. I always see the question on talk shows and such "Why do other countries not like us?" Well, thats easy to see. Spreading Democracy is fine, but it should be done by example.

Absolutely.

and the question shouldn't even be asked. We know why they don't like us. It's been in numerous intelligence reports and the 9/11 report. They don't like us b/c we're bombing their countries, sticking our beak in their government, and have bases on their lands.

Sadly, some people are naive enough to buy the government line that they "hate us for our freedoms".

12-13-2012, 11:36 AM

WES445

To be the fox in the hen's house

Do you think that maybe our standard of living was brought by having the biggest military in the world? Our abililty to bribe or change other country's leaders to ones who bow down to our business concerns, which is back by this large military force. Would we be able to command what we, USA, want from others if another country or countries had bigger forces? Our spheres of influences around the world is back by the largest army, not sweet talk or others desires to hang with us. Military bases in Korea keeps the peace. Our persence in Japan, reminds the Chinese to watch their manners torwards Japan and other countries near them, like Vietnam. Who to said, that our bases in Europe don't keep the peace. Those bases have enable Europe economies to grow without being burden by military expenditures. Saud Arabia seems to enjoy our presense there as well as other small, but oil rich countries circling the area.

I am often conflicted over our foreign policies, especially when we had been brutal in getting what we want. Our standard of living is arguablely the best in the world, but was it paid for by things we now protest against. The Jack Nickelson's rant in the movie "For A Few Good Men" closing moments with " Do you really what to know the truth?" and when Tom Cruise pushs him, he replys " You can't handle the truth". I often believe our foreign policies is like that. We want cheap things, we want cheap gas for our cars, we want to believe our aims are pure in the world, but the reality of achieveing those standard would sicken us.

12-13-2012, 11:51 AM

Labgrownmangoat

Quote:

Originally Posted by WES445

To be the fox in the hen's house

Do you think that maybe our standard of living was brought by having the biggest military in the world? Our abililty to bribe or change other country's leaders to ones who bow down to our business concerns, which is back by this large military force. Would we be able to command what we, USA, want from others if another country or countries had bigger forces? Our spheres of influences around the world is back by the largest army, not sweet talk or others desires to hang with us. Military bases in Korea keeps the peace. Our persence in Japan, reminds the Chinese to watch their manners torwards Japan and other countries near them, like Vietnam. Who to said, that our bases in Europe don't keep the peace. Those bases have enable Europe economies to grow without being burden by military expenditures. Saud Arabia seems to enjoy our presense there as well as other small, but oil rich countries circling the area.

I am often conflicted over our foreign policies, especially when we had been brutal in getting what we want. Our standard of living is arguablely the best in the world, but was it paid for by things we now protest against. The Jack Nickelson's rant in the movie "For A Few Good Men" closing moments with " Do you really what to know the truth?" and when Tom Cruise pushs him, he replys " You can't handle the truth". I often believe our foreign policies is like that. We want cheap things, we want cheap gas for our cars, we want to believe our aims are pure in the world, but the reality of achieveing those standard would sicken us.

Military spending only has the illusion of being economically productive, for the most part. If the government spent the exact same amount contracting with private industries for things that actually get used in the economy, the boost would be tremendous. The products of the military contractors are ships, bombs, planes, computer systems, ammunition etc. that go out of the economy -- they mostly aren't resold or used to create anything else.

So yeah, getting rid of a lot of military spending and replacing it with nothing would be bad for the economy. Replacing some of it a fraction at a time with road building, green energy contracting, and infrastructure projects would be incredibly good for the economy. All that productive capacity would then be dedicated to producing goods and services that are economically beneficial down the line in a way that military spending is not.

12-13-2012, 01:28 PM

WES445

Quote:

Originally Posted by Labgrownmangoat

Military spending only has the illusion of being economically productive, for the most part. If the government spent the exact same amount contracting with private industries for things that actually get used in the economy, the boost would be tremendous. The products of the military contractors are ships, bombs, planes, computer systems, ammunition etc. that go out of the economy -- they mostly aren't resold or used to create anything else.

So yeah, getting rid of a lot of military spending and replacing it with nothing would be bad for the economy. Replacing some of it a fraction at a time with road building, green energy contracting, and infrastructure projects would be incredibly good for the economy. All that productive capacity would then be dedicated to producing goods and services that are economically beneficial down the line in a way that military spending is not.

You really didn't answer the question. Yeah, spending all that money that would had gone to military on social things would be a big push for our economy. This is cool, but military has always been a tool for the economy to.

1. Keep others from grabing your stuff
2. Grabbing other people stuff thru war or threat of war
3. Protect trade routes and over sea business concerns
4. Make you popular with ally and get better deals for goods.

War or threat of war is a extention of diplomacy and economy. The guy with the bigger guns will always be heard over others for the best deal. Do you think we would have low gas prices compare to europe and other countries if we didn't offer the Saudi and the smaller oil producing arab countries security with our arm forces? Sometimes being able to maintain the peace require a large force. Our presence in the yugoslavia civil war prevented genocide there, while maintaining the peace in far away Korea.
Yeah, we could reduced our armed forces, but which sphere of influences would you lose in the process. Europe? they could come under the influences of Russia military might. That might sound craze, but Hilter was able to raise to power without any surpreme forces to deter him. Middle East, lose control of the oilfields there, thus cause our gas to go up. The Far East where our allies are, or africa or south america, both are rich in resources we need.

In a global economy with massive trade routes and various resources far from home, can we afford to lose influences any where in the world? You know if we pull back, someone will pick up the slack. China and Russia would love to see us cut our arm forces and retreat into a full or partial isolationist foreign policy. Should we allow them to easily gain the world cop position? Would we be in a position to maintain our standard of living or be at their mercy like some third world country?

12-13-2012, 05:29 PM

GasMan

Quote:

Originally Posted by WES445

You really didn't answer the question. Yeah, spending all that money that would had gone to military on social things would be a big push for our economy. This is cool, but military has always been a tool for the economy to.

1. Keep others from grabing your stuff
2. Grabbing other people stuff thru war or threat of war
3. Protect trade routes and over sea business concerns
4. Make you popular with ally and get better deals for goods.

War or threat of war is a extention of diplomacy and economy. The guy with the bigger guns will always be heard over others for the best deal. Do you think we would have low gas prices compare to europe and other countries if we didn't offer the Saudi and the smaller oil producing arab countries security with our arm forces? Sometimes being able to maintain the peace require a large force. Our presence in the yugoslavia civil war prevented genocide there, while maintaining the peace in far away Korea.
Yeah, we could reduced our armed forces, but which sphere of influences would you lose in the process. Europe? they could come under the influences of Russia military might. That might sound craze, but Hilter was able to raise to power without any surpreme forces to deter him. Middle East, lose control of the oilfields there, thus cause our gas to go up. The Far East where our allies are, or africa or south america, both are rich in resources we need.

In a global economy with massive trade routes and various resources far from home, can we afford to lose influences any where in the world? You know if we pull back, someone will pick up the slack. China and Russia would love to see us cut our arm forces and retreat into a full or partial isolationist foreign policy. Should we allow them to easily gain the world cop position? Would we be in a position to maintain our standard of living or be at their mercy like some third world country?

The cheap gas isn't really cheap when you take into account how much tax money is required to pay for our foreign endeavors.